[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <deb9f5c1-87fd-9a1f-6277-93d63829bcf5@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 02:12:26 -0700 (MST)
From: Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, david@...hat.com,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, Chunyan Zhang <zhangchunyan@...as.ac.cn>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>, Xu Lu <luxu.kernel@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the mm-unstable
tree
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, 24 Nov 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>
> between commit:
>
> a2fb99195ca8 ("riscv: add RISC-V Svrsw60t59b extension support")
>
> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
>
> 0597b9c8627e ("riscv: Add ISA extension parsing for Zalasr")
>
> from the risc-v tree.
[ ... ]
> diff --cc arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> index f98fcb5c17d5,ae3852c4f2ca..000000000000
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> @@@ -106,7 -106,7 +106,8 @@@
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAAMO 97
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALRSC 98
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOP 99
> -#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR 100
> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVRSW60T59B 100
> ++#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR 101
>
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG 127
I think it might be easier for us, and would result in fewer merge
conflicts, if we took this series through the RISC-V tree. We're merging
in quite a few changes to this hwcap.h file, and touching it in -mm is
likely to result in some unnecessary merge conflicts when we send it to
Linus.
If you'd still prefer to take it via -mm, we could also establish a shared
base.
What do you think?
- Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists